Comments on: Rodney Stuckey’s contract, delays, doesn’t solve Pistons’ dilemma

By: Dan Feldman

Dan Feldman — Tue, 27 Dec 2011 00:13:24 +0000

“buying out rip and subsequently amnestying maxiell is objectively worse for the team than simply amnestying rip in the first place.”

Here are the real-dollar costs for each scenario:

Buying out Rip plus amnestying Maxiell: $20 million
Amnestying Rip plus buying out Maxiell: $28 million

By: Laser

Laser — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 21:40:59 +0000

not saying they could amnesty the buyout. just saying the buyout is more of a drag on our books than maxiell, so amnestying maxiell is out of the question. joe could have simply amnestied rip instead, leaving less money on the books and a rotation quality player on the roster. in other words: if they were going to amnesty maxiell, they should have just amnestied rip in the first place. since they did not amnesty rip, amnestying maxiell is completely out of the question.

buying out rip and subsequently amnestying maxiell is objectively worse for the team than simply amnestying rip in the first place.

By: John

John — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 02:36:36 +0000

1. If he underperforms his contract will still have some value when it expires, and as has been pointed out earlier his PER is actually fairly impressive. At this rate the pistons can move him and he isn’t paid enough to cripple them if they can’t.

2. he over performs the pistons have the longest window to re-sign him if this is the case, the new sign trade rules (come into effect 2 years from now?) make the bird rule more attractive, and his contract will be easy to move if it becomes apparent that he won’t re-sign (though they might not get maxium value at that point). What it really comes down to is how much he overperforms it, and with CV and Gordon being close to off the books at that point they should have enough cap room to re-sign him, and look for another good piece depending on the situation.

3. he plays to the value of the deal. This is possible but I tend to think with stuckeys talent he is either gonna overperform it or underperform it mainly based on whether he can develop a jumper or not. Either way the backcourt will be a lot more settled by that point and detriot can do whats best for them at the time.

Personally I think this deal could work out well for the pistons I don’t think Curry or Kuester really did much to help stuckey and I think Frank can make him quite a bit better, and winning solves a lot of problems. I think rushing to the conclusion that we should trade him isn’t wise because bad teams shouldn’t rush to improve because a lot of the times you end up with guys like Gordon and CV and don’t improve

By: Dan Feldman

Dan Feldman — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 18:05:12 +0000

That was me, and like Patrick said, I definitely didn’t call anyone an idiot.

More examples:

The Miami Heat, who went 15-67 two years after winning the title. They traded Antoine Walker, arguably their third-best player, for Ricky Davis. They let James Posey, one of their top defenders, walk away, and they failed to replace the retiring Gary Payton.

The Los Angeles Lakers, who went 34-48 a year after making the Finals. They traded away Shaq, traded the pick that became Rajon Rondo for Chris Mihm and Chucky Atkins. To upgrade the next year, they traded for Kwame Brown and signed Chucky Atkins.

The Detroit Pistons, who fell to 50 to 48 to 40 to 20 wins after winning their second title. They failed to turn over quality players like Isiah Thomas, Bill Laimbeer, Joe Dumars, Mark Aguirre and Vinnie Johnson. They traded their top player at the time, Dennis Rodman, for a half season of Sean Elliot. They gave Orlando Wooldridge big money.

By: Patrick Hayes

Patrick Hayes — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 17:29:08 +0000

Well, I’m not the writer who responded (although if it was Feldman, calling someone an ‘idiot’ in a comment is not really his style, he’s more mature than I am), but I’ll give this a shot.

The easy example is Chicago. Krause decided to blow up a championship team and start over. His Baby Bulls rebuilding effort was a colossal fail — he essentially got nothing of value for the still productive Jordan, Pippen and Rodman. His free agent signings — Ron Mercer and Eddie Robinson — were busts. And that team was brutally horrible and needed another rebuilding effort to undo what Krause did with the first one. That is the most glaring example of a management decision ruining a title team and running it into the ground.

By: frankie d

frankie d — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 17:12:39 +0000

gordon and CV are the clear candidates for amnesty, but are not likely to be amnesited simply because of the incredible embarrassment it would cause the guy who signed them: joe d.
imho, CV is the better candidate because he can’t play. i find it hard to believe that he has much trade value, despite reports to the contrary. remember, milwaukee didn’t want that clown back when he was a free agent, and then joe inexplicably doubled his salary with his free agency contract. i doubt that his market value has risen. hopefully, i am wrong.
i still think that gordon, in the proper role, can perform as he previously had performed. shooters typically do not lose their shot. gordon’s problem is the same as the problem rip suffered through here: no defined role, not enough minutes. and because he is the type of player who fits into a role, as opposed to being a guy who can just go out and get 25 points on his own, his lack of a defined role and regular minutes has been devastating to his game. place him back in a situation with a decent point guard where he is playing 30 minutes, with the same guys who know how he plays, then i think he’ll be fine.

By: frankie d

frankie d — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 17:04:22 +0000

laser,
an excellent rundown of the current state of affairs and how we got here.
a while back, i think you indicated that what had happened – the collapse – was unprecedented. one of the writers, i think feldman, called you an idiot, or something of that sort, for saying that it was unprecedented.
coincidentally, i’d just taken a look at the last 30 years of the nba – since the bird/magic era – looking for a situation that was similar. an elite team that self-destructed solely based on bad decisions by its management.
i couldn’t find any similar example, as most elite teams – teams that won titles and had long, successful runs – fell from grace because of injuries, free agency issues, conflicts between teammates, something – and i could not find a single instance that was similar to what happened in detroit, where the gm unilaterally dismantled and destroyed an elite team.
so it was unprecedented.
i asked the writer who had called you an idiot if he could find another, similar example and so far, i’ve not seen a response.

By: detroitpcb

detroitpcb — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 12:30:41 +0000

“The free throw stat says more about his teamamtes” Feldman have you ever watched a game in your life?

Stuckey is one of the most difficult players in the league to stop when he goes to the basket and that is his favorite thing to do. He gets calls because he is so strong. Stuckey’s teammates have nothing to do with his going to the line. That is Stuck’s game. I am sure that is exactly what Frank sees in Stuckey and exactly what he wants Stuckey to continue to do. Players that go to the free throw line 10 times a game are rare.

you are a dimwit.

By: Trever

Trever — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 06:10:05 +0000

I think there is a SG in Denver that is a pretty good Perimeter Defender.

By: Dan Feldman

Dan Feldman — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 05:32:00 +0000

Excellent comment, Really interesting stuff.

“Starting with Stuckey’s last season PER of 18.46, placing him tied for 46th best of all players. The 46th highest paid player in the NBA last season was paid $11 million.”

I think PER overrated Stuckey last year. Do you really believe he was the 46th-best player in the league?

We’re on the same page with 2 and 3. With 1, I think what you’re paying other players does matter. If you have other players with negative values, trades become exponentially more difficult. You simply run out of players to include in deals who are both appealing to the other team and not part of a core untradeable group.

I have no problem with paying a non-All-Star $10 million per year, but giving that to someone who hasn’t proven he’s an above-average starter is probably a mistake.

And I agree, the free-throw stat probably says more about his teammates.